Gay Marriage, Again.
This morning matrushkaka and I were talking about my post about Prop 8. She mentioned that a conservative friend of hers from Georgia whose brother came out a while back, and the family dealt with it OK. "He's still our brother and we still love him." Then, recently, he announced that he wanted to get married to his boyfriend of 12 years and the family had a fit about it.
They held the traditional opinion: that a marriage is only a union between a man and a woman under God. And she asked what I thought was a good question: "what about tongodeon and me? We're not religious. If we get married it will not be 'under god' and we will not have a religious officiant. Will we still have a marriage?" He said no. Even if you're heterosexual that's still not a marriage - it's something else.
I at least admire his consistency, but it raises the issue that I'd like to discuss here: the difference between religious and civil code. Some rights are prohibited under religious but not secular law: eating shrimp, the wearing of mixed-textile fabrics, working on Sunday (or Saturday), eating pork, etc. Some laws are completely secular: capital gains tax, term limits, speed limits, etc. And some rights are prohibited in religious or secular law: the right to murder without cause, for example. Civil law prohibits murder not because it's yet another arbitrary rule written in an old book somewhere but because murder produces real, tangible, demonstrable societal harm.
In the absence of that harm, the separation of church and state prevents the unnecessary comingling of secular and religious law. Jews can't do stuff that goyem can do. Christians can't do stuff that heathens can do. Muslims can't do stuff that kafir can do. And everyone is pretty much OK with this. Jews don't get bent out of shape about goyem eating cheeseburgers. They don't even worry that their children will be "taught about cheeseburgers in school" or that civil society will "force them to accept cheeseburgers". Muslims *do* sometimes get bent out of shape when non-muslims violate Muslim law, and we should oppose their unnecessary religious interference for the same reason that we should oppose unnecessary interference from any other religion.
Remember when you were a little kid and you were growing up and your friends were out playing a game like "Cowboys and Indians" or "Fort"? Some game where they would make up fake boundaries for the game? They would say, "The bike path at the Slingerlands is lava, and if you touch it, the lava burns you and you're dead. And the hedges at the Skafidees are poisonous snakes, and if you go by the hedges, the snakes bite you and you die". But you weren't there when they started playing, you show up an hour later, and they say "Oh don't touch the bike path, it's lava! Dude, the hedges are snakes!" And you have to say, "Guys, I wasn't here when you made those rules, I'm not playing, it doesn't affect me." That's how I feel about gay marriage. "You can't do that, it's illegal." I wasn't here when you did all that. I'm not playing your game. It doesn't affect me and my friends.
(A modified quote originally by Patton Oswalt)
Secular law should only protect civilians from secular harm, and gay marriage does not produce secular harm to society. I don't care whether your religion recognizes a homosexual union as a "marriage" any more than I care whether your religion recognizes a cheeseburger as "food", but if you keep your nosy invisible friend out of my refrigerator, life, and laws I will make sure that other people keep their nosy invisible friends out of yours.
They held the traditional opinion: that a marriage is only a union between a man and a woman under God. And she asked what I thought was a good question: "what about tongodeon and me? We're not religious. If we get married it will not be 'under god' and we will not have a religious officiant. Will we still have a marriage?" He said no. Even if you're heterosexual that's still not a marriage - it's something else.
I at least admire his consistency, but it raises the issue that I'd like to discuss here: the difference between religious and civil code. Some rights are prohibited under religious but not secular law: eating shrimp, the wearing of mixed-textile fabrics, working on Sunday (or Saturday), eating pork, etc. Some laws are completely secular: capital gains tax, term limits, speed limits, etc. And some rights are prohibited in religious or secular law: the right to murder without cause, for example. Civil law prohibits murder not because it's yet another arbitrary rule written in an old book somewhere but because murder produces real, tangible, demonstrable societal harm.
In the absence of that harm, the separation of church and state prevents the unnecessary comingling of secular and religious law. Jews can't do stuff that goyem can do. Christians can't do stuff that heathens can do. Muslims can't do stuff that kafir can do. And everyone is pretty much OK with this. Jews don't get bent out of shape about goyem eating cheeseburgers. They don't even worry that their children will be "taught about cheeseburgers in school" or that civil society will "force them to accept cheeseburgers". Muslims *do* sometimes get bent out of shape when non-muslims violate Muslim law, and we should oppose their unnecessary religious interference for the same reason that we should oppose unnecessary interference from any other religion.
Remember when you were a little kid and you were growing up and your friends were out playing a game like "Cowboys and Indians" or "Fort"? Some game where they would make up fake boundaries for the game? They would say, "The bike path at the Slingerlands is lava, and if you touch it, the lava burns you and you're dead. And the hedges at the Skafidees are poisonous snakes, and if you go by the hedges, the snakes bite you and you die". But you weren't there when they started playing, you show up an hour later, and they say "Oh don't touch the bike path, it's lava! Dude, the hedges are snakes!" And you have to say, "Guys, I wasn't here when you made those rules, I'm not playing, it doesn't affect me." That's how I feel about gay marriage. "You can't do that, it's illegal." I wasn't here when you did all that. I'm not playing your game. It doesn't affect me and my friends.
(A modified quote originally by Patton Oswalt)
Secular law should only protect civilians from secular harm, and gay marriage does not produce secular harm to society. I don't care whether your religion recognizes a homosexual union as a "marriage" any more than I care whether your religion recognizes a cheeseburger as "food", but if you keep your nosy invisible friend out of my refrigerator, life, and laws I will make sure that other people keep their nosy invisible friends out of yours.